By: Ahmed Abdelwahid

New investigations by The Washington Post and The New York Times have brought confidential documents, images and communications into the public domain, intensifying allegations that Sudan’s military developed, stockpiled and used chlorine-based chemical munitions during the country’s civil war.

According to material reviewed by The Washington Post, “Sudan’s authoritarian government built a secret stockpile of chemical weapons that senior military officials sought to conceal” after chlorine bombs were allegedly used against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The report describes an alleged programme involving diverted chlorine supplies, hidden production sites, desert weapons tests and as many as 290 chemical munitions.

The allegations remain disputed, as Sudanese officials, including army chief Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, have denied that the government developed or used chemical weapons.

Alleged stockpile and production

The Washington Post said the material supplied by Middle Eastern security officials included internal documents, videos, text messages and other records. The documents allegedly describe chlorine shipments intended for drinking-water treatment being diverted, warhead production taking place on military bases and bombs being tested in remote desert locations.

The files reportedly include references to “dual-effect” munitions filled with “choking gas”, as well as communications suggesting that Sudanese security forces had accumulated up to 290 chemical munitions. The newspaper said it was not clear what ultimately happened to the alleged stockpile.

One reported design involved a munition containing approximately 15 kilograms of chlorine gas and 20 kilograms of explosives. The accompanying material allegedly said the design was intended “to conceal any evidence of the use of chemicals.”

The Washington Post presented the documents to intelligence officials, chemical-weapons experts, inspectors and human-rights specialists. Several reportedly considered the material credible or strongly indicative of a chemical-weapons programme, while cautioning that definitive conclusions would require access to suspected sites, witnesses and physical samples.

A separate investigation by the New York Times examined a dossier containing approximately 150 documents, photographs, videos and a voice recording, along with thousands of text messages said to have been extracted from the phones of senior Sudanese military officials.

The material allegedly describes a six-month effort in 2024 to develop and manufacture chlorine-based munitions. The project reportedly began in July, followed by tests involving an Antonov An-32 aircraft near Merowe.

By October, the dossier allegedly indicated that nearly 300 chemical munitions had been produced, most of them stored at Merowe airport in northern Sudan. The reported communications also raise questions about the extent to which senior military commanders knew about the project.

Questions over al-Burhan’s role

The investigations reportedly include communications involving Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who leads the Sudanese Armed Forces and the army-aligned government. The reports interpret some of those communications as evidence that he knew about the alleged programme.

The material also reportedly refers to efforts to remove traces of the project after the United States accused Sudan of chemical-weapons use. However, alleged awareness of a weapons programme is not the same as proof that al-Burhan ordered a chemical attack or authorised the use of prohibited weapons.

Establishing individual or command responsibility would require evidence connecting specific officials to decisions to produce, deploy or use the munitions.

Civilian chlorine supplies

The reported evidence raises further questions about the origin of the chlorine used for these operations. Some accounts allegedly describe tanks arriving through Egypt, while others refer to chlorine associated with civilian water-treatment facilities. The material reportedly suggests that at least some supplies intended to support drinking-water systems may have been diverted.

The appearance of civilian water infrastructure in the documents does not, by itself, establish that international aid supplies were misused. Records from humanitarian agencies and water authorities would need to be compared with production documents, transport logs and inventories.

Sudan rejects allegations

Sudan’s army has rejected the accusations, describing the published material as lacking a material evidentiary basis. Officials have also pointed to Sudan’s membership of the Chemical Weapons Convention and denied that the country produces, possesses or uses chemical weapons.

Sudan has also separately challenged the United States’ allegations at the United Nations, saying the IS government had not provided evidence to Sudan or to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

An internal investigation reportedly concluded that “based on available evidence and data from field measurements … there is no evidence of chemical or radioactive contamination.”

U.S. sanctions and OPCW scrutiny

The United States has maintained that Sudan used chemical weapons in 2024 and has imposed sanctions on the Sudanese government. Washington has called for further investigation and urged Sudan to cooperate with the OPCW, the international body responsible for implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Sudan has described the sanctions as unilateral and unlawful, arguing that they rely on unsubstantiated claims and bypass the treaty’s international mechanisms.

The OPCW has not publicly verified all of the allegations described in the newspaper investigations. Independent access to suspected weapons sites, witnesses, military records and physical samples would be necessary to determine whether chemical weapons were produced or used and who was responsible.

The reports significantly expand the public record surrounding the allegations by identifying an alleged production process, stockpile, testing locations and communications involving senior military figures. They also provide disturbing material that may help investigators identify possible incidents requiring forensic examination.